W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Delta Compression and UTF-8 Header Values

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 11:52:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcRM63pEd5tvpkMcnQwqg-3FwFv9ftWxYLrZQpw2-sCEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
++

-=R


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>wrote:

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> --------
> In message <CABP7Rbd7bck4czG9c84hLeAHMnbeqb1mYhS+-DKKtZYEyia=
> 6A@mail.gmail.com>
> , James M Snell writes:
> >On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >>>So the question is: do we want to allow UTF-8 header values?
> >>
> >> Jim Gettys famously laid down some principles for X11 development,
> >> number 1 and 3 of which are:
> >>
> >>         1.Do not add new functionality unless an implementor cannot
> >>           complete a real application without it.
>
> >AFAIC, the main motivation for allowing UTF-8 headers is to reduce
> >(and *eventually* eliminate) the need for
> >punycode/pct-encoding/B-codec/Q-codec/RFC5987.
>
> I guess the relevant question then is: Are these headers where it
> is necessary for HTTP entities to understand the value (ie:
> "Cache-Control", "Location" etc, ) or headers which are just
> transported transparently from end to end ("X-FOObar", "Cookie"
> etc.)
>
> In the latter case, supporting UTF-8 is merely a matter of letting
> another bit through per byte, in the former case it opens a major
> bucket of worms IMO.
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
>
>
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 19:53:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 February 2013 19:53:29 GMT